Advances.in’s Post

#cognitive #dissonance (i.e., a counterattitudinal-behavior induced state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior) - a prominent and well-researced phenomenon in #socialscience / #socialpsychology. In a multi-lab replication study involving 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages and 4,898 participants (N = 4,898), David Vaidis et al. conduct an impressive robustness check. The experimental setting: -an induced-compliance paradigm with three experimental conditions subjects were assigned to: a) writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice b) writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice c) writing a neutral essay under high choice The results: -no significant attitudinal differences btw. a) and b) -significant attitudinal differences btw. a) / b) and c) The implications: -questionable whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance Interesting insights for #marketingresearchers as well. Study link in the first comment (#openaccess).

Call for papers: "Memory & Technology: 4E Perspectives." If you have any interesting ideas about the relation between memory and technology, please consider submitting a paper to this SI of Review of Philosophy and Psychology. Deadline: April 2025. Guest editors: Richard Heersmink and Kirk Michaelian

"It is important to know when we are engaged in a framed or a framing enquiry. Unfortunately, it is not always straightforward to tell, especially from the inside." - Céline Henneis, postdoctoral fellow in philosophy at the University of Bologna More from the essay: "Scientists can enquire into the temperature on Earth over the past million years because others before them have developed the conceptual, theoretical and instrumental tools that allow us to understand and measure temperature and study its effects on a host of natural phenomena." "By contrast, in what we may term ‘framing enquiries’, which include what Carnap called ‘external questions’, the framework itself is at stake. The issue is not just what to think about things, but how to think about them." "Many debates labour in unproductive arguments when it is wrongly assumed that participants share the same framework...If you are debating whether this or that country is a democracy, or whether trans women are women, chances are you are not relying on the same framework but rather debating about the framework itself." "First, the distinction between framed and framing enquiry is a spectrum rather than a dichotomy, and that complicates matters. Many of our daily investigations are very clearly on the framed end of the spectrum: why is the kitchen sink leaking? How many eggs do we have in the fridge? But in more complex enquiries, whether in science or politics, the boundaries between framed and framing enquiry are blurred, as we most often alternate between the two. There can be framing moments in a mostly framed enquiry, as when we decide which analysis to perform in a statistical study. Sometimes, we have to wait until the end of our enquiry to find out whether it was a framed or framing enquiry. We might think that we are dealing with a familiar kind of problem, only to discover that we need to reconfigure our approach as we go along. Second, we might be oblivious to the difference between framed and framing enquiry because we are oblivious to the presence of frameworks themselves. Frameworks are crystallisations of our understanding of the world, and they remain transparent most of the time. We see through them instead of looking at them. We rarely examine them until they break down. Even then, we tend to believe that the words we use and the methods we learned are transparent ways of describing reality. We hold on to our deep-seated intuition that all of our enquiries are like Hercule Poirot mysteries. We debate as if the world itself could settle who is right or wrong, even in the sociopolitical domain." (adapted from Aeon essay by Céline Henneis)

My interview on Philosophical Cognitive Science: Topic: Language vs Theory-of-Mind, & Anti-Chomskyan view of Language https://lnkd.in/gaptx7c6

Is #bullshit more than just Machiavellian? Is there skill involved? Among over 500 people, Christian Blotter found that bullshitting was predicted by #Machiavellianism only at average and above average levels of verbal reasoning: So bullshit may require some skill — perhaps the kind of skill we assess in many #admissions and #hiring decisions! Moreover, large language models also exhibit great writing/verbal ability, and — like bullshitters — prioritize the naturalness of language without concern for truth. So perhaps the study above indicates that what makes LLMs so impressive is their ability to bullshit (rather than reason intelligently). https://lnkd.in/eEqDkgxx #epistemology #edu #higherEd #socialMedia #decisionScience #JDM

According to the scientific "justificationist" method, knowledge consisted of proven sentences. Classical intellectuals (or "rationalists," in the narrow sense of the term) have accepted extremely varied - and powerful "proofs", through revelation, intellectual intuition, experience. These, with the help of logic, have allowed them to prove any kind of scientific statement. #ImreLakatos #justificationism #knowledge #methodology #science

"The inductive method" is when one observes individual cases and begins to draw conclusions and predict the future outcomes of other similar cases. Rationally, the only argument for this is really that "it works." There is no complicated philosophical or scientific justification as to why this should work. David Hume seems to be the first to highlight an issue with this approach - the rationale is circular: why should we use the method of induction to predict future events? Because, in the past, this method has shown itself to be useful in predicting future events....

"The Art of Thinking Clearly" by Rolf Dobelli explores the common cognitive biases and logical errors that affect our decision-making processes. The book presents 99 short chapters, each focusing on a specific bias or fallacy, such as the confirmation bias, the sunk cost fallacy, and the hindsight bias. Dobelli uses practical examples and anecdotes to illustrate how these biases can lead us astray and offers advice on how to recognize and counteract them to improve our thinking and decision-making skills. The main theme is about improving clarity in thinking by understanding and mitigating the common pitfalls in human cognition.

Reflexivity prompts researchers to recognize that they are not neutral observers. Instead of striving for complete objectivity, researchers are encouraged to reflect on how their backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences might influence their interpretations and decisions throughout the research process. This acknowledgment helps to mitigate biases that could distort findings 

In an era where information is abundant, it is crucial to distinguish between objective truths grounded in scientific principles and subjective beliefs that arise from cultural, religious, and moral frameworks. This distinction is vital for accurate understanding and successful navigation of the physical world. In this blog post, we explore the essence of scientific laws and theories, the limitations of personal beliefs, and the importance of proper execution in achieving success, regardless of intentions.